Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Casey i believe this did evolve into a healthy discussion from the "local media bias" part of that thread title. I think this may be one of the most civil discussions on this topic I have seen so far here.
Casey i believe this did evolve into a healthy discussion from the "local media bias" part of that thread title. I think this may be one of the most civil discussions on this topic I have seen so far here.
Civil, yes. Doesn't belong in this thread, though.
"Local Media Bias" refers to local media coverage of the primary candidates.
For what it's worth, I'd much rather read about the Red Sox - even on an off day.
You and most people, which is why even a game against the Orioles will garner more coverage than something like a governor's race. So while baseball may catch your interest more, you must admit that an upcoming election for state governor has more importance than a single game in August against a lackluster team. It's not like it's even football where a game actually matters (in the sports/entertainment world anyway).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shrewsburried
If you think these are 'good ideas', you're in the minority here in MA.
“Today, in the cynical, opportunistic style of LGBTQ activists everywhere, the world’s most powerful nation has asked all the other nations of the world to join in its blasphemy of God by flying the rainbow flag in memory of the ‘gay on gay’ slaughter at the homosexual Pulse nightclub in Orlando. It is the responsibility of Christians (and Torah-believing Jews) everywhere to speak out against this defilement of God’s rainbow, and to demand that the LGBT movement cease and desist cloaking itself in His flag.” posted after the Orlando shooting
"It is not mere coincidence that the emperors of Rome in its horrific final days were homosexual; that Adolf Hitler's inner circle were mostly homosexual; and that nearly all of the most prolific serial killers in U.S. history were homosexual. It is not mere coincidence that America's cultural decline parallels the rise of 'gay rights.’"
“We need to bring back public discussion of AIDS as a ‘gay’ disease, pederasty as [sic] major subculture of male homosexuality, mental health problems and domestic violence as major problems associated with lesbianism, the increasing recruitment of children into a homosexual identity through experimentation with ‘gay’ sex, etc. – all the truths we stopped telling because the other side screamed so loudly about them.”
Lively is to the gay community what the Rothschild conspiracists are to the Jewish community. It's a poor and hateful attempt to place the failures of a complex world on the shoulders of the single group/people ... and it's abhorrent.
While you might say it's "different" coming from a candidate for governor, it's hard to see any of that as really "hateful". People's religious beliefs (or lack thereof) are never going to reach a consensus, the issue is the end result how it comes into play with the office he is running for. For instance, "gay marriage" has already been settled by the courts. It is not going anywhere, if one is truly worried about that.
But in the last paragraph, those are mostly undeniable truths that are acknowledged by pro-gay organizations likewise. AIDS, mental health issues/substance abuse, domestic violence; those are very real problems facing that "community". There should be no tolerance for scapegoating, but ignoring/denial doesn't help much either (although there are much more serious issues facing the state).
The "the increasing recruitment of children into a homosexual identity through experimentation with ‘gay’ sex, etc" I can tell you is very much real and going on in some school systems. What's most disturbing, is that it's done most of the time without the knowledge of the parents. That is something the governor absolutely SHOULD be addressing.
Last edited by massnative71; 08-15-2018 at 01:36 PM..
AIDS, mental health issues/substance abuse, domestic violence; those are very real problems facing that "community".
Do you know a lot of gay couples who struggle with these things? Of all the gay couples I know, I wouldn’t say that any of them struggle with domestic violence, mental health issues or substance abuse. Furthermore, I can’t think of a reason why gay men would be at a higher risk for those things than anyone else, gay or otherwise.
If all of your gay friends are drug addicts and spouse-beaters, then I’d recommend that you find some new gay friends.
I agree on most points. But where we lose eachother is when you assume that no whites or people who statistically classify as whites are or families were never able to feel hardship is plain irresponsible. Most of my family has come here from famine in a country that was torn apart in a war a generation before them. They were treaded and lived essentially like poverty you have probably never seen, Only to come to a new place to face ridicule by the very people you think they should be lumped in with. Telling these people how much privilege they came from is a tough sell. Thats my point on that matter. Never argued that some do have it better than others. just don't judge on the color of ones skin is all.
Nobody said this. White privilege doesn't mean your life hasn't been hard. It just means that your skin color isn't one of the things that's making it harder. Everyone has different sets of advantages and disadvantages. Skin color is only one of them.
My family is of Irish heritage (came over during the famine), and I've heard all about the hardships. My girlfriend's grandparents came over from Italy. They don't like me because I'm Irish and "the things the Irish did to them when they arrived are unforgivable." However, aside from that (which is really negligible as far as impact on my daily life goes), it doesn't affect me. I'm not disadvantaged in the criminal justice system, I don't have trouble finding a place to live simple because my name sounds like it might be a black name, I don't run the risk of not getting hired (or making less) because of my skin color, I never worried about wearing a hoodie in the street, etc. If I were born to white parents who were addicted to drugs, that woudl be a disadvantage. If I didn't have a family that pushed for me to go to college from a young age, that would be a disadvantage. There are plenty of disadvantages white people can have. Skin color isn't one of them. At least not in the U.S.
I read the Globe every day (I have subscriptions to all of the local papers for work), and there's very little coverage of anyone but Baker, and even that coverage skews negative (sometimes heavily so). Especially now with the MBTA stuff (as if it's his fault maintenance has been deferred for decades).
I don't blame him for the MBTA, he has actually done more to address it than other recent governors. I think the state police issues could fall on him a lot more, we'll see with both that and this whole business with his son.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lrfox
I just think we're coming to point of reckoning with the media and in the long run it'll be good, but right now it's tough. The media has always had a bias / slant and we've been naive pretending that it doesn't. They're run by human beings who have agendas and biases, and the reporters are also human beings with biases and agendas. "Unbiased reporting" is not a real thing. The Globe skews left. No question about it. Most of the Lively coverage has descriptions like "anti-gay candidate Scott Lively." But if you flip over to the Herald, you get stuff like "That’s my takeaway from the outrageous claim by Sen. Elizabeth Warren, the fake Indian." It's up to us, the readers, to be able to see through the bias and do our own homework. Unfortunately, most people don't want to do that and just become further entrenched in believing whatever the outlets that align with their own political views have to say. I think we're seeing a little bit more of a shift on that front though. .
Yeah of course media sources have always been biased and always will be, perhaps I should have used the term "irrelevant" instead. I still think it's their duty to give us full coverage on these things, especially the Globe if they want to continue on as New England's "newspaper of record". The last election I recall with a totally "safe" incumbent was Celluci, when Harshbarger ran against him. Even then I believe both sides got covered by both papers, even in the primaries. I hope you're right on the shift, but I see it getting yet worse before getting better again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lrfox
He didn't kill gays - but he did go to Uganda to rally against the "gay agenda" and said stuff like this “They are so far from normalcy that they’re killers. They’re serial killers, mass murderers. They’re sociopaths.” That's pretty extreme (there's actual footage of him saying this stuff out there you can find on Google). He may not be blaming gays for the entire holocaust, but he still says stuff like this in the book (which you can also find on Google) "The Pink Swastika is a response to the "gay political agenda" and its strategy of portraying homosexuals as victims of societal and Nazi persecution." and "The Nazi Party was conceived, organized and controlled throughout its short history by masculine-oriented male homosexuals."That's pretty extreme (even if others before have postulated the same thing). He's definitely anti-gay, so that's not an inaccurate portrayal. Responsible for the deaths of gay Ugandans? Eh, it's hard to directly implicate him (though he was implicated for crimes against Ugandans), but he's certainly no ally, and absolutely did nothing to help keep violence from happening.
You see that is just another example of his words being taken entirely out of context. I did a bit of research on him as well (back in 2014 when he ran as an Independent), and what I recall was that "They" were a gang of murderous sexual predators who (might have been influenced by some primitive religion or something, and were characterized by their use of homosexuality to dominate) were devastating the country in a similar manner that the cartels are now doing in Mexico. Lively was just one of several "experts" called upon to give testimony re. "saving" their country through Christianity and defeating criminal element. Evangelical Christians take a beating in the USA, but with that influence Uganda claims to be much safer now. IMHO I do not think "secular humanism" or whatever the liberals would have as a solution would have done the trick over there. Of course there were some losers and the laws might have gone too far, but I think peace is far more obtainable by the average person today than before (it's hard to find any reliable data though).
Quote:
Originally Posted by lrfox
I can't pretend to know what you're referring to, but I just hope you (and everyone else, on both sides) does their homework on this guy. I can absolutely understand the issues people have with Baker. Especially conservatives who feel he is a RINO and a betrayer of the party. I just don't think Lively is the answer. It doesn't take a ton of digging to see where he kind of goes off the deep end.
I totally agree, everyone should do their research (kind of my whole point here)! But people should have the means to do that research and it must be done carefully. Let them have a debate. Give him a chance to defend himself (and make Baker defend his record). If the facts work against Lively, then so be it.
I'd also like to stress that I didn't really start this thread to sell people on Scott Lively, but for mainly the reason indicated in the title of the thread itself. Lively's views are certainly not going to win him a popularity contest (especially on a forum such as this). I was asking people to look past their personal views of him and chime in on their expectations of the news media and election coverage. As you pointed out, it should be an issue for Democrats as well (or do they just consider Baker one of their own now?).
Do you know a lot of gay couples who struggle with these things? Of all the gay couples I know, I wouldn’t say that any of them struggle with domestic violence, mental health issues or substance abuse. Furthermore, I can’t think of a reason why gay men would be at a higher risk for those things than anyone else, gay or otherwise.
If all of your gay friends are drug addicts and spouse-beaters, then I’d recommend that you find some new gay friends.
No, I choose my friends wisely (straight or gay). But the data clearly shows it, and it shouldn't be a taboo to point it out. People have no problem throwing out that XXX race suffers more from YYYYYY than the general population, it's really no different.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaseyB
No, Lively is not the answer. He's a bomb thrower with no political experience and he's never run a business. Not qualified to be governor, he should have run for a local office first and gained experience.
Trump wasn't the answer either, but it had to happen.
Do you know a lot of gay couples who struggle with these things? Of all the gay couples I know, I wouldn’t say that any of them struggle with domestic violence, mental health issues or substance abuse. Furthermore, I can’t think of a reason why gay men would be at a higher risk for those things than anyone else, gay or otherwise.
If all of your gay friends are drug addicts and spouse-beaters, then I’d recommend that you find some new gay friends.
I have not researched and/or verified this, but I have heard that there's a high rate of domestic violence with lesbian couples.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
. The last election I recall with a totally "safe" incumbent was Celluci, when Harshbarger ran against him. Even then I believe both sides got covered by both papers, even in the primaries. I hope you're right on the shift, but I see it getting yet worse before getting better again. 
). I was asking people to look past their personal views of him and chime in on their expectations of the news media and election coverage. As you pointed out, it should be an issue for Democrats as well (or do they just consider Baker one of their own now?).
. But the data clearly shows it, and it shouldn't be a taboo to point it out. People have no problem throwing out that XXX race suffers more from YYYYYY than the general population, it's really no different.
